Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

NDTi Insight 19: the impact of advocacy

A new piece of work on the impact of advocacy has found that a lack of robust evidence leaves advocacy in a potentially vulnerable position. Full information here: http://www.ndti.org.uk/news/ndti-news/the-impact-of-advocacy-for-people-who-use-social-care-services-a-review-of/

NDTi Insight 19: the impact of advocacy

1.
19
NDTi Insights give you the most important bits of learning from a piece of work by the National Development Team for Inclusion (NDTi). We aim to
make them quick to read; they point to more detailed materials for those who want more information.
The impact of advocacy for people who use social care
services: a review of the evidence
Who should read this?
Plain English summary
This paper is for people who
are responsible for
commissioning advocacy
services for all people who use
social care services and for
organisations that provide
advocacy. It will also be of
interest to all people who use
social care services, including
older people, people with
learning disabilities and people
with mental health problems.
NDTi were asked to find out what evidence there is about the
impact of advocacy – both in terms of the effect it has on people’s
lives and whether the money is well spent. We checked all the
research evidence we could find to help answer this.
Background and Purpose
of Report
The role of advocacy in
supporting people who use
social care services is vital, and
has long been a focus of UK
Government policy. However,
there is a lack of understanding
about the evidence of its
impact in social care, with
anecdotal evidence of recent
disinvestment in advocacy
taking place without
consideration of the impact
this might have. The School for
Social Care Research
commissioned the NDTi to
carry out a scoping review to
identify what evidence exists
on the impact of advocacy,
including around the difference
it makes to people’s lives and
its cost effectiveness.
We found there is very little strong evidence to help answer this
question. There are a lot of individual stories about the positive
work of advocacy, but very little information that helps to measure
the difference advocacy makes to the lives of people using it.
If advocacy services are to continue and grow, it is important that
this type of evidence is collected and reported.
Main findings
The review found an overwhelming lack of published, robust evidence on the
impact of advocacy, especially regarding its cost-effectiveness, but also with
regard to both quantitative and qualitative data that evidences the impact of
advocacy.
These findings were significantly informed by shortcomings in the robustness
and quality of existing published evidence. The three main problems with
published materials were:
Relying on stories or anecdotes without analysing common themes
A reliance on people’s views rather than empirical evidence
No consistent basis for assessing the evidence of advocacy’s impact.
These problems significantly arose from a lack of rigorous, routine and
consistent collection of local data on outcomes by both providers and
commissioners of advocacy.
Evidence from cost benefit analysis of the financial impact of advocacy is very
limited and focused on specific groups. Where robust evidence exists, it is
positive about the impact of advocacy. For example, a rigorous cost-benefit
analysis undertaken by LSE of advocacy when the children of parents with
learning disabilities are subject to child safeguarding procedures showed a
Return on Investment for the public sector of £2 for every £1 invested. There
is no robust evidence that shows advocacy does not have a cost effective
impact i.e. the issue is mainly a lack of evidence either way.
Other ‘grey’ literature – produced, for example, by advocacy providers –
Continued overleaf
1

2.
Main findings – continued
Further NDTI Insights
Also available:
Insights 14: A review of the
Economic Evidence Around
Supported Employment
Insights 7: Prevention that
works
Insights 3: Increasing voice,
choice and control for older
people with high support needs
www.ndti.org.uk/publications/
ndti-insights
This report
A copy of the full report is
available via our website:
http://www.ndti.org.uk/whatwe-do/voice-choice-andcontrol/the-impact-ofadvocacy-for-people-whoneed-support/
For more information on our
work on People’s Voice, please
visit the NDTi website:
http://www.ndti.org.uk/whatwe-do/voice-choice-andcontrol/
For more information on our
advocacy work, please contact
Tom Raines at NDTi on 01225
789135 or
tom.raines@ndti.org.uk
Contact
NDTi
First Floor
30-32 Westgate Buildings
Bath BA1 1EF
Tel: 01225 789135
conveys the difference independent advocacy can make. This is based on
descriptions given by people of the difference it has made to them, as well as
service reviews. Though this information hasn’t always been independently or
robustly verified it does, however, provide an indication of why such strong
beliefs are held on the positive difference advocacy makes.
There is very little robust evidence on outcomes for individuals arising from
advocacy interventions. Evidence is also not available that highlights the
outcomes different types of advocacy achieve and very little evidence that
describes the different types of outcomes that advocacy can achieve at an
individual, service, or local/national level with regards to strategy or policy.
Some qualitative evidence exists on the process of advocacy for particular
people (such as disabled children and young people and those in the care
system). However, there are significant gaps in the literature on the evidenced
effectiveness of advocacy, particularly (though not limited to) older people and
people with mental health problems or who lack capacity.
There is a similar lack of evidence on the impact advocacy has on service
delivery, design or local strategy. Literature describes positive impacts such as
on professionals’ attitudes, but this typically relies just on personal opinions of
those professionals or advocates. Beyond this, it is not possible to determine
whether positive developments could only have happened because of the
presence of advocacy organisations. Nationally, the literature reflects a stronger
sense of policy initiatives impacting on advocacy, rather than vice versa.
Conclusions and key messages
It is very important to clarify that the lack of evidence about the impact of
advocacy should not be interpreted as stating there is evidence that advocacy
fails to have a positive impact, nor that it is not a cost effective use of public
resources. It could well be a highly effective, cost efficient way of investing
public money. What this work has identified is that there is a lack of robust
research and evidence to enable conclusions to be drawn either way.
Consequently, this work suggests that the lack of robust evidence leaves
advocacy in a potentially vulnerable position. During difficult financial times,
with an increasing need to demonstrate effectiveness in public spending and a
downward trend in the funding advocacy organisations receive, the need for
better quality, more widely quantified information on the outcomes of advocacy
has never been greater.
There exist well-developed outcome frameworks which could provide a
platform from which advocacy organisations can build the case for their (cost)
effectiveness. Similarly, the advocacy Quality Performance Mark also enables
advocacy organisations to demonstrate the quality of the service they deliver
against a recognised national benchmark. The use of such tools should be
encouraged by both advocacy providers and commissioners alike.
NDTi strongly believes that advocacy should be available to people to help them
speak up and have their voices heard by services and society. If advocacy is to be
protected and grow, this study shows there is a clear need for commissioners
and providers to work together to generate evidence of impact, including cost
effectiveness, in order to help justify continued funding.
2